Re: Documentation Policy
Should we create JIRA for these so that the work to be done on these does not get lost? ... or should we schedule a doc blitz to take care of as many as possible right away? (Inclusive OR.) -- Lefty On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:35 PM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: A few more from older releases: *0.10*: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-2397?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC10%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC *0.11:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-3073?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC11%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC *0.12:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-5161?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC12%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC Should we create JIRA for these so that the work to be done on these does not get lost? On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed, deleting TODOC## simplifies the labels field, so we should just use comments to keep track of docs done. Besides, doc tasks can get complicated -- my gmail inbox has a few messages with simultaneous done and to-do labels -- so comments are best for tracking progress. Also, as Szehon noticed, links in the comments make it easy to find the docs. +1 on (a): delete TODOCs when done; don't add any new labels. -- Lefty On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:31 PM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: +1 on deleting the TODOC tag as I think it's assumed by default that once an enhancement is done, it will be doc'ed. We may consider adding an additional docdone tag but I think we can instead just wait for a +1 from the contributor that the documentation is satisfactory (and assume a implicit +1 for no reply) before deleting the TODOC tag. On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Szehon Ho sze...@cloudera.com wrote: Yea, I'd imagine the TODOC tag pollutes the query of TODOC's and confuses the state of a JIRA, so its probably best to remove it. The idea of docdone is to query what docs got produced and needs review? It might be nice to have a tag for that, to easily signal to contributor or interested parties to take a look. On a side note, I already find very helpful your JIRA comments with links to doc-wikis, both to inform the contributor and just as reference for others. Thanks again for the great work. On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: One more question: what should we do after the documentation is done for a JIRA ticket? (a) Just remove the TODOC## label. (b) Replace TODOC## with docdone (no caps, no version number). (c) Add a docdone label but keep TODOC##. (d) Something else. -- Lefty On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Brock Noland br...@cloudera.com wrote: Thank you guys! This is great work. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:20 PM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Going through the issues, I think overall Lefty did an awesome job catching and documenting most of them in time. Following are some of the 0.13 and 0.14 ones which I found which either do not have documentation or have outdated one and probably need one to be consumeable. Contributors, feel free to remove the label if you disagree. *TODOC13:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6827?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC13%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) *TODOC14:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6999?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC14%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) I'll continue digging through the queue going backwards to 0.12 and 0.11 and see if I find similar stuff there as well. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:36 AM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Feel free to label such jiras with this keyword and ask the contributors for more information if you need any. Cool. I'll start chugging through the queue today adding labels as apt. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: Shall we lump 0.13.0 and 0.13.1 doc tasks as TODOC13? Sounds good to me. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the
Re: Documentation Policy
A few more from older releases: *0.10*: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-2397?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC10%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC *0.11:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-3073?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC11%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC *0.12:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-5161?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC12%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC Should we create JIRA for these so that the work to be done on these does not get lost? On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed, deleting TODOC## simplifies the labels field, so we should just use comments to keep track of docs done. Besides, doc tasks can get complicated -- my gmail inbox has a few messages with simultaneous done and to-do labels -- so comments are best for tracking progress. Also, as Szehon noticed, links in the comments make it easy to find the docs. +1 on (a): delete TODOCs when done; don't add any new labels. -- Lefty On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:31 PM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: +1 on deleting the TODOC tag as I think it's assumed by default that once an enhancement is done, it will be doc'ed. We may consider adding an additional docdone tag but I think we can instead just wait for a +1 from the contributor that the documentation is satisfactory (and assume a implicit +1 for no reply) before deleting the TODOC tag. On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Szehon Ho sze...@cloudera.com wrote: Yea, I'd imagine the TODOC tag pollutes the query of TODOC's and confuses the state of a JIRA, so its probably best to remove it. The idea of docdone is to query what docs got produced and needs review? It might be nice to have a tag for that, to easily signal to contributor or interested parties to take a look. On a side note, I already find very helpful your JIRA comments with links to doc-wikis, both to inform the contributor and just as reference for others. Thanks again for the great work. On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: One more question: what should we do after the documentation is done for a JIRA ticket? (a) Just remove the TODOC## label. (b) Replace TODOC## with docdone (no caps, no version number). (c) Add a docdone label but keep TODOC##. (d) Something else. -- Lefty On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Brock Noland br...@cloudera.com wrote: Thank you guys! This is great work. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:20 PM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Going through the issues, I think overall Lefty did an awesome job catching and documenting most of them in time. Following are some of the 0.13 and 0.14 ones which I found which either do not have documentation or have outdated one and probably need one to be consumeable. Contributors, feel free to remove the label if you disagree. *TODOC13:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6827?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC13%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) *TODOC14:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6999?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC14%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) I'll continue digging through the queue going backwards to 0.12 and 0.11 and see if I find similar stuff there as well. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:36 AM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Feel free to label such jiras with this keyword and ask the contributors for more information if you need any. Cool. I'll start chugging through the queue today adding labels as apt. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: Shall we lump 0.13.0 and 0.13.1 doc tasks as TODOC13? Sounds good to me. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
Re: Documentation Policy
One more question: what should we do after the documentation is done for a JIRA ticket? (a) Just remove the TODOC## label. (b) Replace TODOC## with docdone (no caps, no version number). (c) Add a docdone label but keep TODOC##. (d) Something else. -- Lefty On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Brock Noland br...@cloudera.com wrote: Thank you guys! This is great work. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:20 PM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Going through the issues, I think overall Lefty did an awesome job catching and documenting most of them in time. Following are some of the 0.13 and 0.14 ones which I found which either do not have documentation or have outdated one and probably need one to be consumeable. Contributors, feel free to remove the label if you disagree. *TODOC13:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6827?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC13%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) *TODOC14:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6999?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC14%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) I'll continue digging through the queue going backwards to 0.12 and 0.11 and see if I find similar stuff there as well. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:36 AM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Feel free to label such jiras with this keyword and ask the contributors for more information if you need any. Cool. I'll start chugging through the queue today adding labels as apt. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: Shall we lump 0.13.0 and 0.13.1 doc tasks as TODOC13? Sounds good to me. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- Swarnim -- Swarnim
Re: Documentation Policy
Yea, I'd imagine the TODOC tag pollutes the query of TODOC's and confuses the state of a JIRA, so its probably best to remove it. The idea of docdone is to query what docs got produced and needs review? It might be nice to have a tag for that, to easily signal to contributor or interested parties to take a look. On a side note, I already find very helpful your JIRA comments with links to doc-wikis, both to inform the contributor and just as reference for others. Thanks again for the great work. On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: One more question: what should we do after the documentation is done for a JIRA ticket? (a) Just remove the TODOC## label. (b) Replace TODOC## with docdone (no caps, no version number). (c) Add a docdone label but keep TODOC##. (d) Something else. -- Lefty On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Brock Noland br...@cloudera.com wrote: Thank you guys! This is great work. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:20 PM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Going through the issues, I think overall Lefty did an awesome job catching and documenting most of them in time. Following are some of the 0.13 and 0.14 ones which I found which either do not have documentation or have outdated one and probably need one to be consumeable. Contributors, feel free to remove the label if you disagree. *TODOC13:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6827?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC13%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) *TODOC14:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6999?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC14%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) I'll continue digging through the queue going backwards to 0.12 and 0.11 and see if I find similar stuff there as well. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:36 AM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Feel free to label such jiras with this keyword and ask the contributors for more information if you need any. Cool. I'll start chugging through the queue today adding labels as apt. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: Shall we lump 0.13.0 and 0.13.1 doc tasks as TODOC13? Sounds good to me. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- Swarnim -- Swarnim
Re: Documentation Policy
+1 on deleting the TODOC tag as I think it's assumed by default that once an enhancement is done, it will be doc'ed. We may consider adding an additional docdone tag but I think we can instead just wait for a +1 from the contributor that the documentation is satisfactory (and assume a implicit +1 for no reply) before deleting the TODOC tag. On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Szehon Ho sze...@cloudera.com wrote: Yea, I'd imagine the TODOC tag pollutes the query of TODOC's and confuses the state of a JIRA, so its probably best to remove it. The idea of docdone is to query what docs got produced and needs review? It might be nice to have a tag for that, to easily signal to contributor or interested parties to take a look. On a side note, I already find very helpful your JIRA comments with links to doc-wikis, both to inform the contributor and just as reference for others. Thanks again for the great work. On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: One more question: what should we do after the documentation is done for a JIRA ticket? (a) Just remove the TODOC## label. (b) Replace TODOC## with docdone (no caps, no version number). (c) Add a docdone label but keep TODOC##. (d) Something else. -- Lefty On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Brock Noland br...@cloudera.com wrote: Thank you guys! This is great work. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:20 PM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Going through the issues, I think overall Lefty did an awesome job catching and documenting most of them in time. Following are some of the 0.13 and 0.14 ones which I found which either do not have documentation or have outdated one and probably need one to be consumeable. Contributors, feel free to remove the label if you disagree. *TODOC13:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6827?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC13%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) *TODOC14:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6999?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC14%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) I'll continue digging through the queue going backwards to 0.12 and 0.11 and see if I find similar stuff there as well. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:36 AM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Feel free to label such jiras with this keyword and ask the contributors for more information if you need any. Cool. I'll start chugging through the queue today adding labels as apt. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: Shall we lump 0.13.0 and 0.13.1 doc tasks as TODOC13? Sounds good to me. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- Swarnim -- Swarnim -- Swarnim
Re: Documentation Policy
Agreed, deleting TODOC## simplifies the labels field, so we should just use comments to keep track of docs done. Besides, doc tasks can get complicated -- my gmail inbox has a few messages with simultaneous done and to-do labels -- so comments are best for tracking progress. Also, as Szehon noticed, links in the comments make it easy to find the docs. +1 on (a): delete TODOCs when done; don't add any new labels. -- Lefty On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:31 PM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: +1 on deleting the TODOC tag as I think it's assumed by default that once an enhancement is done, it will be doc'ed. We may consider adding an additional docdone tag but I think we can instead just wait for a +1 from the contributor that the documentation is satisfactory (and assume a implicit +1 for no reply) before deleting the TODOC tag. On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Szehon Ho sze...@cloudera.com wrote: Yea, I'd imagine the TODOC tag pollutes the query of TODOC's and confuses the state of a JIRA, so its probably best to remove it. The idea of docdone is to query what docs got produced and needs review? It might be nice to have a tag for that, to easily signal to contributor or interested parties to take a look. On a side note, I already find very helpful your JIRA comments with links to doc-wikis, both to inform the contributor and just as reference for others. Thanks again for the great work. On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: One more question: what should we do after the documentation is done for a JIRA ticket? (a) Just remove the TODOC## label. (b) Replace TODOC## with docdone (no caps, no version number). (c) Add a docdone label but keep TODOC##. (d) Something else. -- Lefty On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Brock Noland br...@cloudera.com wrote: Thank you guys! This is great work. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:20 PM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Going through the issues, I think overall Lefty did an awesome job catching and documenting most of them in time. Following are some of the 0.13 and 0.14 ones which I found which either do not have documentation or have outdated one and probably need one to be consumeable. Contributors, feel free to remove the label if you disagree. *TODOC13:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6827?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC13%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) *TODOC14:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6999?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC14%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) I'll continue digging through the queue going backwards to 0.12 and 0.11 and see if I find similar stuff there as well. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:36 AM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Feel free to label such jiras with this keyword and ask the contributors for more information if you need any. Cool. I'll start chugging through the queue today adding labels as apt. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: Shall we lump 0.13.0 and 0.13.1 doc tasks as TODOC13? Sounds good to me. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- Swarnim -- Swarnim -- Swarnim
Re: Documentation Policy
Thank you guys! This is great work. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:20 PM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Going through the issues, I think overall Lefty did an awesome job catching and documenting most of them in time. Following are some of the 0.13 and 0.14 ones which I found which either do not have documentation or have outdated one and probably need one to be consumeable. Contributors, feel free to remove the label if you disagree. *TODOC13:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6827?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC13%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) *TODOC14:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6999?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC14%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) I'll continue digging through the queue going backwards to 0.12 and 0.11 and see if I find similar stuff there as well. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:36 AM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Feel free to label such jiras with this keyword and ask the contributors for more information if you need any. Cool. I'll start chugging through the queue today adding labels as apt. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: Shall we lump 0.13.0 and 0.13.1 doc tasks as TODOC13? Sounds good to me. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- Swarnim -- Swarnim
Re: Documentation Policy
Feel free to label such jiras with this keyword and ask the contributors for more information if you need any. Cool. I'll start chugging through the queue today adding labels as apt. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: Shall we lump 0.13.0 and 0.13.1 doc tasks as TODOC13? Sounds good to me. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- Swarnim
Re: Documentation Policy
Going through the issues, I think overall Lefty did an awesome job catching and documenting most of them in time. Following are some of the 0.13 and 0.14 ones which I found which either do not have documentation or have outdated one and probably need one to be consumeable. Contributors, feel free to remove the label if you disagree. *TODOC13:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6827?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC13%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) *TODOC14:* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-6999?jql=project%20%3D%20HIVE%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20TODOC14%20AND%20status%20in%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed) I'll continue digging through the queue going backwards to 0.12 and 0.11 and see if I find similar stuff there as well. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:36 AM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Feel free to label such jiras with this keyword and ask the contributors for more information if you need any. Cool. I'll start chugging through the queue today adding labels as apt. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: Shall we lump 0.13.0 and 0.13.1 doc tasks as TODOC13? Sounds good to me. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- Swarnim -- Swarnim
Re: Documentation Policy
Let's reopen this discussion. Brock asked in HIVE-7140 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-7140?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14025258#comment-14025258 how we can make sure the user docs get updated for jiras committed for release 0.14 (I wonder if we should put a TODO in the release notes so it can be easily pulled for the 0.14 release?). In many cases, a release note can contain all the doc information or a pointer to it. But sometimes it's more complicated. In any case, can we agree on a standard phrase such as TODO or DOC14 to put in the release note so it's easy to find jiras that need user docs when the time comes? Presumably the doc flag would be removed from the release note as soon as the wiki has been updated. But realistically, some jiras wouldn't get documented in time for the release. So should those jiras get listed somewhere at release time and have their doc flag removed, or do we want the world to see what's unfinished in the release notes? -- Lefty On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: Well, if it works for Pig then let's give it a try for Hive. Unless someone has a better idea, of course. (Nudge.) Both javadocs and wikidocs should be strongly encouraged. Also hive-default.xml.template for new config parameters. Anything else? By the way here's another example of a JIRA that hides its need for documentation: HIVE-4002 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-4002 creates config param 'hive.fetch.task.aggr' but doesn't mention it by name anywhere except the patch, so when I did a JIRA search I couldn't find it. I'm not trying to embarrass anyone, it's just that I try to keep track of JIRAs that create user parameters or new syntax, and this one escaped notice until I was researching another hive.fetch.xxx. -- Lefty On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: In case of pig, where the documentation is under same repository and version controlled, the feature patch is expected to include the documentation changes as well, or at least documentation in release notes section that be used to create documentation. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: What do other projects do? -- Lefty On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: I am fine with a followup doc jira if the enough information to create a document is there in the original jira (in form of release notes section of jira, or jira description etc). There has to be enough information so that people who don't know hive internals can also do the follow up work of updating the docs. But I think committers need to ensure either the doc update is done as part of committing process or a sufficient information is in the jira and there is a follow up 'format the information and update appropriate section in wiki' jira. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: Could a new status such as Just needs doc be added? Or perhaps a resolution such as Undocumented? Because folks who want to get their hands on new features need a way to know when the code is ready, even if the doc is missing. Sometimes information is available if you know where to look for it (JIRA comments patches, javadocs, tests) or if slides are available from a presentation. Sometimes tinkering around works, or using the mailing lists. Sure, that's not good enough for general users so pushing for wikidocs seems like a good idea. But let's not create a limbo of features and fixes waiting for docs. Unless new doc resources are going to be allocated soon ... ? Shameless plug for getting more Hive tech writers. I like the release notes idea. When the doc is too elaborate for release notes, a link to the wikidoc could be given. If a design doc has current information, that could be noted. If javadocs are sufficient, the classes could be listed. A minor advantage of using a separate doc ticket is that it can be assigned to a writer or different developer without obscuring the coding responsibility. And, of course, it boosts the JIRA count for contributors on the Credits http://hive.apache.org/credits.html#Contributors page (except that the link is broken). -- Lefty On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: There is no guarantee that the subtask will ever get completed after the feature goes in. There is no point of new features if users can't actually figure how to use it. I think we should either add sufficient documentation in the release notes section of jira or add doc in wiki as upcoming feature before we commit the changes. On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Eugene Koifman
Re: Documentation Policy
TODOC14 sounds good. But I think it should be a label in the labels field of the jira (it would auto-complete and people are less likely to use wrong keyword) We should still ask developers to fill out the release notes section with sufficient information for creating documentation for it. We should document this in how-to-contribute wiki page, once we agree on this. Also, I don't think we need to wait for end of the release cycle to start documenting features for the next release. We can document it saying that something like for upcoming 0.14 release. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: Let's reopen this discussion. Brock asked in HIVE-7140 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-7140?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14025258#comment-14025258 how we can make sure the user docs get updated for jiras committed for release 0.14 (I wonder if we should put a TODO in the release notes so it can be easily pulled for the 0.14 release?). In many cases, a release note can contain all the doc information or a pointer to it. But sometimes it's more complicated. In any case, can we agree on a standard phrase such as TODO or DOC14 to put in the release note so it's easy to find jiras that need user docs when the time comes? Presumably the doc flag would be removed from the release note as soon as the wiki has been updated. But realistically, some jiras wouldn't get documented in time for the release. So should those jiras get listed somewhere at release time and have their doc flag removed, or do we want the world to see what's unfinished in the release notes? -- Lefty On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: Well, if it works for Pig then let's give it a try for Hive. Unless someone has a better idea, of course. (Nudge.) Both javadocs and wikidocs should be strongly encouraged. Also hive-default.xml.template for new config parameters. Anything else? By the way here's another example of a JIRA that hides its need for documentation: HIVE-4002 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-4002 creates config param 'hive.fetch.task.aggr' but doesn't mention it by name anywhere except the patch, so when I did a JIRA search I couldn't find it. I'm not trying to embarrass anyone, it's just that I try to keep track of JIRAs that create user parameters or new syntax, and this one escaped notice until I was researching another hive.fetch.xxx. -- Lefty On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: In case of pig, where the documentation is under same repository and version controlled, the feature patch is expected to include the documentation changes as well, or at least documentation in release notes section that be used to create documentation. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: What do other projects do? -- Lefty On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: I am fine with a followup doc jira if the enough information to create a document is there in the original jira (in form of release notes section of jira, or jira description etc). There has to be enough information so that people who don't know hive internals can also do the follow up work of updating the docs. But I think committers need to ensure either the doc update is done as part of committing process or a sufficient information is in the jira and there is a follow up 'format the information and update appropriate section in wiki' jira. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: Could a new status such as Just needs doc be added? Or perhaps a resolution such as Undocumented? Because folks who want to get their hands on new features need a way to know when the code is ready, even if the doc is missing. Sometimes information is available if you know where to look for it (JIRA comments patches, javadocs, tests) or if slides are available from a presentation. Sometimes tinkering around works, or using the mailing lists. Sure, that's not good enough for general users so pushing for wikidocs seems like a good idea. But let's not create a limbo of features and fixes waiting for docs. Unless new doc resources are going to be allocated soon ... ? Shameless plug for getting more Hive tech writers. I like the release notes idea. When the doc is too elaborate for release notes, a link to the wikidoc could be given. If a design doc has current information, that could be noted. If javadocs are sufficient, the classes could be listed. A minor advantage of using a separate doc ticket is that it can be assigned to a writer or different developer without obscuring the coding responsibility. And, of course, it
Re: Documentation Policy
Thanks, Thejas. TODOC14 sounds good. But I think it should be a label in the labels field of the jira ... An advantage of labels is that they won't show up in the published release notes. Also, I don't think we need to wait for end of the release cycle to start documenting features for the next release. Agreed, but I think we should wait until the next release is less than two months away. What do other people think? One exception would be significant bug fixes, which the wiki can document immediately as fixed in the next release with a link to the Jira. That way people will find out about the bug and can try applying the patch. (Of course they can also find out directly in the Jira, or in the hive-dev mailing list, but we want to make the wiki more useful.) A possible problem is if the next release gets a different number, such as 0.13.2 or 1.0.0. But it's easy enough to grep through an exported copy of the wiki to find all instances of 0.14 and change them to the new number. -- Lefty On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: TODOC14 sounds good. But I think it should be a label in the labels field of the jira (it would auto-complete and people are less likely to use wrong keyword) We should still ask developers to fill out the release notes section with sufficient information for creating documentation for it. We should document this in how-to-contribute wiki page, once we agree on this. Also, I don't think we need to wait for end of the release cycle to start documenting features for the next release. We can document it saying that something like for upcoming 0.14 release. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: Let's reopen this discussion. Brock asked in HIVE-7140 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-7140?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14025258#comment-14025258 how we can make sure the user docs get updated for jiras committed for release 0.14 (I wonder if we should put a TODO in the release notes so it can be easily pulled for the 0.14 release?). In many cases, a release note can contain all the doc information or a pointer to it. But sometimes it's more complicated. In any case, can we agree on a standard phrase such as TODO or DOC14 to put in the release note so it's easy to find jiras that need user docs when the time comes? Presumably the doc flag would be removed from the release note as soon as the wiki has been updated. But realistically, some jiras wouldn't get documented in time for the release. So should those jiras get listed somewhere at release time and have their doc flag removed, or do we want the world to see what's unfinished in the release notes? -- Lefty On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: Well, if it works for Pig then let's give it a try for Hive. Unless someone has a better idea, of course. (Nudge.) Both javadocs and wikidocs should be strongly encouraged. Also hive-default.xml.template for new config parameters. Anything else? By the way here's another example of a JIRA that hides its need for documentation: HIVE-4002 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-4002 creates config param 'hive.fetch.task.aggr' but doesn't mention it by name anywhere except the patch, so when I did a JIRA search I couldn't find it. I'm not trying to embarrass anyone, it's just that I try to keep track of JIRAs that create user parameters or new syntax, and this one escaped notice until I was researching another hive.fetch.xxx. -- Lefty On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: In case of pig, where the documentation is under same repository and version controlled, the feature patch is expected to include the documentation changes as well, or at least documentation in release notes section that be used to create documentation. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: What do other projects do? -- Lefty On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: I am fine with a followup doc jira if the enough information to create a document is there in the original jira (in form of release notes section of jira, or jira description etc). There has to be enough information so that people who don't know hive internals can also do the follow up work of updating the docs. But I think committers need to ensure either the doc update is done as part of committing process or a sufficient information is in the jira and there is a follow up 'format the information and update appropriate section in wiki' jira. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: Could a new status such as Just
Re: Documentation Policy
Also, I don't think we need to wait for end of the release cycle to start documenting features for the next release. Agreed, but I think we should wait until the next release is less than two months away. What do other people think? We have been releasing almost every 3-4 months. So that is the longest un-released version documentation would be in the docs. Writing documentation sooner rather than later is likely to increases the chances of things getting documented. It is easier to get details from developers while the details are still fresh in their minds. It would also even the load on documentation volunteers over the time. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Documentation Policy
Writing documentation sooner rather than later is likely to increases the chances of things getting documented. Big +1 on this. I think documentation contributes towards one of the major technical debts(I personally have quite a bit for the patches I contributed). IMHO committers may choose to reject patches that don't have usage documentation if they include significant work which practically cannot be consumed without proper documentation. Slightly tangential but how we do choose on adding this to some of the already resolved JIRAs that are missing documentation? I can volunteer to dig through our JIRA queue and find some of these out but probably would need some help from the contributors on these to be sure that they are doc'ed properly. :) On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: Also, I don't think we need to wait for end of the release cycle to start documenting features for the next release. Agreed, but I think we should wait until the next release is less than two months away. What do other people think? We have been releasing almost every 3-4 months. So that is the longest un-released version documentation would be in the docs. Writing documentation sooner rather than later is likely to increases the chances of things getting documented. It is easier to get details from developers while the details are still fresh in their minds. It would also even the load on documentation volunteers over the time. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- Swarnim
Re: Documentation Policy
Slightly tangential but how we do choose on adding this to some of the already resolved JIRAs that are missing documentation? I can volunteer to dig through our JIRA queue and find some of these out but probably would need some help from the contributors on these to be sure that they are doc'ed properly. :) Feel free to label such jiras with this keyword and ask the contributors for more information if you need any. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Documentation Policy
I can dig through my backlog and add TODOC13 or TODOC14 to a bunch of issues. Some are even earlier than Hive 0.13 ... sigh! If you're digging through the JIRA queue, I suggest starting with the 0.13.0 and 0.13.1 release lists. Check the end of the comments to see if I (or anyone) said the doc was done. Shall we lump 0.13.0 and 0.13.1 doc tasks as TODOC13? -- Lefty On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:56 PM, kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com kulkarni.swar...@gmail.com wrote: Writing documentation sooner rather than later is likely to increases the chances of things getting documented. Big +1 on this. I think documentation contributes towards one of the major technical debts(I personally have quite a bit for the patches I contributed). IMHO committers may choose to reject patches that don't have usage documentation if they include significant work which practically cannot be consumed without proper documentation. Slightly tangential but how we do choose on adding this to some of the already resolved JIRAs that are missing documentation? I can volunteer to dig through our JIRA queue and find some of these out but probably would need some help from the contributors on these to be sure that they are doc'ed properly. :) On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: Also, I don't think we need to wait for end of the release cycle to start documenting features for the next release. Agreed, but I think we should wait until the next release is less than two months away. What do other people think? We have been releasing almost every 3-4 months. So that is the longest un-released version documentation would be in the docs. Writing documentation sooner rather than later is likely to increases the chances of things getting documented. It is easier to get details from developers while the details are still fresh in their minds. It would also even the load on documentation volunteers over the time. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- Swarnim
Re: Documentation Policy
Shall we lump 0.13.0 and 0.13.1 doc tasks as TODOC13? Sounds good to me. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Documentation Policy
Well, if it works for Pig then let's give it a try for Hive. Unless someone has a better idea, of course. (Nudge.) Both javadocs and wikidocs should be strongly encouraged. Also hive-default.xml.template for new config parameters. Anything else? By the way here's another example of a JIRA that hides its need for documentation: HIVE-4002 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-4002creates config param 'hive.fetch.task.aggr' but doesn't mention it by name anywhere except the patch, so when I did a JIRA search I couldn't find it. I'm not trying to embarrass anyone, it's just that I try to keep track of JIRAs that create user parameters or new syntax, and this one escaped notice until I was researching another hive.fetch.xxx. -- Lefty On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: In case of pig, where the documentation is under same repository and version controlled, the feature patch is expected to include the documentation changes as well, or at least documentation in release notes section that be used to create documentation. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: What do other projects do? -- Lefty On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: I am fine with a followup doc jira if the enough information to create a document is there in the original jira (in form of release notes section of jira, or jira description etc). There has to be enough information so that people who don't know hive internals can also do the follow up work of updating the docs. But I think committers need to ensure either the doc update is done as part of committing process or a sufficient information is in the jira and there is a follow up 'format the information and update appropriate section in wiki' jira. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: Could a new status such as Just needs doc be added? Or perhaps a resolution such as Undocumented? Because folks who want to get their hands on new features need a way to know when the code is ready, even if the doc is missing. Sometimes information is available if you know where to look for it (JIRA comments patches, javadocs, tests) or if slides are available from a presentation. Sometimes tinkering around works, or using the mailing lists. Sure, that's not good enough for general users so pushing for wikidocs seems like a good idea. But let's not create a limbo of features and fixes waiting for docs. Unless new doc resources are going to be allocated soon ... ? Shameless plug for getting more Hive tech writers. I like the release notes idea. When the doc is too elaborate for release notes, a link to the wikidoc could be given. If a design doc has current information, that could be noted. If javadocs are sufficient, the classes could be listed. A minor advantage of using a separate doc ticket is that it can be assigned to a writer or different developer without obscuring the coding responsibility. And, of course, it boosts the JIRA count for contributors on the Credits http://hive.apache.org/credits.html#Contributors page (except that the link is broken). -- Lefty On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: There is no guarantee that the subtask will ever get completed after the feature goes in. There is no point of new features if users can't actually figure how to use it. I think we should either add sufficient documentation in the release notes section of jira or add doc in wiki as upcoming feature before we commit the changes. On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Eugene Koifman ekoif...@hortonworks.com wrote: I think opening a separate doc ticket and making it a subtask of the dev ticket works pretty well. The subtask can contain notes specific to documentation. Eugene On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Lars Francke lars.fran...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I wanted to ask how people feel about a policy where an issue is not closed until documentation has been added to the Wiki? Problematic issues fall roughly in two categories: * They have a generic title (add UDF for XY) an attached patch and a few code reviews without ever even mentioning what the name or usage of the new UDF is ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-5252 ) * They have a design document or description with the intended syntax but that's often not the final form so one has to look up the patch (can't find a good example right now) Both are a lot of work to document for someone who has not followed that issue. Tracking undocumented things would be got to not forget about it and to have an incentive to do it.
Re: Documentation Policy
Could a new status such as Just needs doc be added? Or perhaps a resolution such as Undocumented? Because folks who want to get their hands on new features need a way to know when the code is ready, even if the doc is missing. Sometimes information is available if you know where to look for it (JIRA comments patches, javadocs, tests) or if slides are available from a presentation. Sometimes tinkering around works, or using the mailing lists. Sure, that's not good enough for general users so pushing for wikidocs seems like a good idea. But let's not create a limbo of features and fixes waiting for docs. Unless new doc resources are going to be allocated soon ... ? Shameless plug for getting more Hive tech writers. I like the release notes idea. When the doc is too elaborate for release notes, a link to the wikidoc could be given. If a design doc has current information, that could be noted. If javadocs are sufficient, the classes could be listed. A minor advantage of using a separate doc ticket is that it can be assigned to a writer or different developer without obscuring the coding responsibility. And, of course, it boosts the JIRA count for contributors on the Credits http://hive.apache.org/credits.html#Contributors page (except that the link is broken). -- Lefty On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: There is no guarantee that the subtask will ever get completed after the feature goes in. There is no point of new features if users can't actually figure how to use it. I think we should either add sufficient documentation in the release notes section of jira or add doc in wiki as upcoming feature before we commit the changes. On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Eugene Koifman ekoif...@hortonworks.com wrote: I think opening a separate doc ticket and making it a subtask of the dev ticket works pretty well. The subtask can contain notes specific to documentation. Eugene On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Lars Francke lars.fran...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I wanted to ask how people feel about a policy where an issue is not closed until documentation has been added to the Wiki? Problematic issues fall roughly in two categories: * They have a generic title (add UDF for XY) an attached patch and a few code reviews without ever even mentioning what the name or usage of the new UDF is (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-5252) * They have a design document or description with the intended syntax but that's often not the final form so one has to look up the patch (can't find a good example right now) Both are a lot of work to document for someone who has not followed that issue. Tracking undocumented things would be got to not forget about it and to have an incentive to do it. Obviously not all things need documentation, and not all things need to be documented by the person who submitted the patch. But to make things easier for documentation people it'd be great if the issue could contain an up to date description of at least the syntax changes and configuration options etc. so that we can tidy it up and transfer it to the wiki. It's not nice to dig through patches for this. Another alternative would be to open issues like Document HIVE-5252 but I like the other option better. What do people think? Cheers, Lars -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Documentation Policy
Another advantage of separate doc ticket is that when we are making a release it's easier to tell what has been checked in already and what else needs to be done and whether we should hold the release due to doc issues or not. Release notes are only useful for people who already have a lot of experience with the product. Eugene On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.comwrote: Could a new status such as Just needs doc be added? Or perhaps a resolution such as Undocumented? Because folks who want to get their hands on new features need a way to know when the code is ready, even if the doc is missing. Sometimes information is available if you know where to look for it (JIRA comments patches, javadocs, tests) or if slides are available from a presentation. Sometimes tinkering around works, or using the mailing lists. Sure, that's not good enough for general users so pushing for wikidocs seems like a good idea. But let's not create a limbo of features and fixes waiting for docs. Unless new doc resources are going to be allocated soon ... ? Shameless plug for getting more Hive tech writers. I like the release notes idea. When the doc is too elaborate for release notes, a link to the wikidoc could be given. If a design doc has current information, that could be noted. If javadocs are sufficient, the classes could be listed. A minor advantage of using a separate doc ticket is that it can be assigned to a writer or different developer without obscuring the coding responsibility. And, of course, it boosts the JIRA count for contributors on the Credits http://hive.apache.org/credits.html#Contributors page (except that the link is broken). -- Lefty On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: There is no guarantee that the subtask will ever get completed after the feature goes in. There is no point of new features if users can't actually figure how to use it. I think we should either add sufficient documentation in the release notes section of jira or add doc in wiki as upcoming feature before we commit the changes. On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Eugene Koifman ekoif...@hortonworks.com wrote: I think opening a separate doc ticket and making it a subtask of the dev ticket works pretty well. The subtask can contain notes specific to documentation. Eugene On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Lars Francke lars.fran...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I wanted to ask how people feel about a policy where an issue is not closed until documentation has been added to the Wiki? Problematic issues fall roughly in two categories: * They have a generic title (add UDF for XY) an attached patch and a few code reviews without ever even mentioning what the name or usage of the new UDF is (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-5252) * They have a design document or description with the intended syntax but that's often not the final form so one has to look up the patch (can't find a good example right now) Both are a lot of work to document for someone who has not followed that issue. Tracking undocumented things would be got to not forget about it and to have an incentive to do it. Obviously not all things need documentation, and not all things need to be documented by the person who submitted the patch. But to make things easier for documentation people it'd be great if the issue could contain an up to date description of at least the syntax changes and configuration options etc. so that we can tidy it up and transfer it to the wiki. It's not nice to dig through patches for this. Another alternative would be to open issues like Document HIVE-5252 but I like the other option better. What do people think? Cheers, Lars -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
Re: Documentation Policy
I am fine with a followup doc jira if the enough information to create a document is there in the original jira (in form of release notes section of jira, or jira description etc). There has to be enough information so that people who don't know hive internals can also do the follow up work of updating the docs. But I think committers need to ensure either the doc update is done as part of committing process or a sufficient information is in the jira and there is a follow up 'format the information and update appropriate section in wiki' jira. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: Could a new status such as Just needs doc be added? Or perhaps a resolution such as Undocumented? Because folks who want to get their hands on new features need a way to know when the code is ready, even if the doc is missing. Sometimes information is available if you know where to look for it (JIRA comments patches, javadocs, tests) or if slides are available from a presentation. Sometimes tinkering around works, or using the mailing lists. Sure, that's not good enough for general users so pushing for wikidocs seems like a good idea. But let's not create a limbo of features and fixes waiting for docs. Unless new doc resources are going to be allocated soon ... ? Shameless plug for getting more Hive tech writers. I like the release notes idea. When the doc is too elaborate for release notes, a link to the wikidoc could be given. If a design doc has current information, that could be noted. If javadocs are sufficient, the classes could be listed. A minor advantage of using a separate doc ticket is that it can be assigned to a writer or different developer without obscuring the coding responsibility. And, of course, it boosts the JIRA count for contributors on the Credits http://hive.apache.org/credits.html#Contributors page (except that the link is broken). -- Lefty On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: There is no guarantee that the subtask will ever get completed after the feature goes in. There is no point of new features if users can't actually figure how to use it. I think we should either add sufficient documentation in the release notes section of jira or add doc in wiki as upcoming feature before we commit the changes. On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Eugene Koifman ekoif...@hortonworks.com wrote: I think opening a separate doc ticket and making it a subtask of the dev ticket works pretty well. The subtask can contain notes specific to documentation. Eugene On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Lars Francke lars.fran...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I wanted to ask how people feel about a policy where an issue is not closed until documentation has been added to the Wiki? Problematic issues fall roughly in two categories: * They have a generic title (add UDF for XY) an attached patch and a few code reviews without ever even mentioning what the name or usage of the new UDF is (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-5252) * They have a design document or description with the intended syntax but that's often not the final form so one has to look up the patch (can't find a good example right now) Both are a lot of work to document for someone who has not followed that issue. Tracking undocumented things would be got to not forget about it and to have an incentive to do it. Obviously not all things need documentation, and not all things need to be documented by the person who submitted the patch. But to make things easier for documentation people it'd be great if the issue could contain an up to date description of at least the syntax changes and configuration options etc. so that we can tidy it up and transfer it to the wiki. It's not nice to dig through patches for this. Another alternative would be to open issues like Document HIVE-5252 but I like the other option better. What do people think? Cheers, Lars -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
Re: Documentation Policy
What do other projects do? -- Lefty On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: I am fine with a followup doc jira if the enough information to create a document is there in the original jira (in form of release notes section of jira, or jira description etc). There has to be enough information so that people who don't know hive internals can also do the follow up work of updating the docs. But I think committers need to ensure either the doc update is done as part of committing process or a sufficient information is in the jira and there is a follow up 'format the information and update appropriate section in wiki' jira. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: Could a new status such as Just needs doc be added? Or perhaps a resolution such as Undocumented? Because folks who want to get their hands on new features need a way to know when the code is ready, even if the doc is missing. Sometimes information is available if you know where to look for it (JIRA comments patches, javadocs, tests) or if slides are available from a presentation. Sometimes tinkering around works, or using the mailing lists. Sure, that's not good enough for general users so pushing for wikidocs seems like a good idea. But let's not create a limbo of features and fixes waiting for docs. Unless new doc resources are going to be allocated soon ... ? Shameless plug for getting more Hive tech writers. I like the release notes idea. When the doc is too elaborate for release notes, a link to the wikidoc could be given. If a design doc has current information, that could be noted. If javadocs are sufficient, the classes could be listed. A minor advantage of using a separate doc ticket is that it can be assigned to a writer or different developer without obscuring the coding responsibility. And, of course, it boosts the JIRA count for contributors on the Credits http://hive.apache.org/credits.html#Contributors page (except that the link is broken). -- Lefty On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: There is no guarantee that the subtask will ever get completed after the feature goes in. There is no point of new features if users can't actually figure how to use it. I think we should either add sufficient documentation in the release notes section of jira or add doc in wiki as upcoming feature before we commit the changes. On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Eugene Koifman ekoif...@hortonworks.com wrote: I think opening a separate doc ticket and making it a subtask of the dev ticket works pretty well. The subtask can contain notes specific to documentation. Eugene On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Lars Francke lars.fran...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I wanted to ask how people feel about a policy where an issue is not closed until documentation has been added to the Wiki? Problematic issues fall roughly in two categories: * They have a generic title (add UDF for XY) an attached patch and a few code reviews without ever even mentioning what the name or usage of the new UDF is (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-5252 ) * They have a design document or description with the intended syntax but that's often not the final form so one has to look up the patch (can't find a good example right now) Both are a lot of work to document for someone who has not followed that issue. Tracking undocumented things would be got to not forget about it and to have an incentive to do it. Obviously not all things need documentation, and not all things need to be documented by the person who submitted the patch. But to make things easier for documentation people it'd be great if the issue could contain an up to date description of at least the syntax changes and configuration options etc. so that we can tidy it up and transfer it to the wiki. It's not nice to dig through patches for this. Another alternative would be to open issues like Document HIVE-5252 but I like the other option better. What do people think? Cheers, Lars -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the
Re: Documentation Policy
In case of pig, where the documentation is under same repository and version controlled, the feature patch is expected to include the documentation changes as well, or at least documentation in release notes section that be used to create documentation. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: What do other projects do? -- Lefty On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: I am fine with a followup doc jira if the enough information to create a document is there in the original jira (in form of release notes section of jira, or jira description etc). There has to be enough information so that people who don't know hive internals can also do the follow up work of updating the docs. But I think committers need to ensure either the doc update is done as part of committing process or a sufficient information is in the jira and there is a follow up 'format the information and update appropriate section in wiki' jira. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Lefty Leverenz leftylever...@gmail.com wrote: Could a new status such as Just needs doc be added? Or perhaps a resolution such as Undocumented? Because folks who want to get their hands on new features need a way to know when the code is ready, even if the doc is missing. Sometimes information is available if you know where to look for it (JIRA comments patches, javadocs, tests) or if slides are available from a presentation. Sometimes tinkering around works, or using the mailing lists. Sure, that's not good enough for general users so pushing for wikidocs seems like a good idea. But let's not create a limbo of features and fixes waiting for docs. Unless new doc resources are going to be allocated soon ... ? Shameless plug for getting more Hive tech writers. I like the release notes idea. When the doc is too elaborate for release notes, a link to the wikidoc could be given. If a design doc has current information, that could be noted. If javadocs are sufficient, the classes could be listed. A minor advantage of using a separate doc ticket is that it can be assigned to a writer or different developer without obscuring the coding responsibility. And, of course, it boosts the JIRA count for contributors on the Credits http://hive.apache.org/credits.html#Contributors page (except that the link is broken). -- Lefty On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Thejas Nair the...@hortonworks.com wrote: There is no guarantee that the subtask will ever get completed after the feature goes in. There is no point of new features if users can't actually figure how to use it. I think we should either add sufficient documentation in the release notes section of jira or add doc in wiki as upcoming feature before we commit the changes. On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Eugene Koifman ekoif...@hortonworks.com wrote: I think opening a separate doc ticket and making it a subtask of the dev ticket works pretty well. The subtask can contain notes specific to documentation. Eugene On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Lars Francke lars.fran...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I wanted to ask how people feel about a policy where an issue is not closed until documentation has been added to the Wiki? Problematic issues fall roughly in two categories: * They have a generic title (add UDF for XY) an attached patch and a few code reviews without ever even mentioning what the name or usage of the new UDF is (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-5252 ) * They have a design document or description with the intended syntax but that's often not the final form so one has to look up the patch (can't find a good example right now) Both are a lot of work to document for someone who has not followed that issue. Tracking undocumented things would be got to not forget about it and to have an incentive to do it. Obviously not all things need documentation, and not all things need to be documented by the person who submitted the patch. But to make things easier for documentation people it'd be great if the issue could contain an up to date description of at least the syntax changes and configuration options etc. so that we can tidy it up and transfer it to the wiki. It's not nice to dig through patches for this. Another alternative would be to open issues like Document HIVE-5252 but I like the other option better. What do people think? Cheers, Lars -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing,
Re: Documentation Policy
I think opening a separate doc ticket and making it a subtask of the dev ticket works pretty well. The subtask can contain notes specific to documentation. Eugene On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Lars Francke lars.fran...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I wanted to ask how people feel about a policy where an issue is not closed until documentation has been added to the Wiki? Problematic issues fall roughly in two categories: * They have a generic title (add UDF for XY) an attached patch and a few code reviews without ever even mentioning what the name or usage of the new UDF is (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-5252) * They have a design document or description with the intended syntax but that's often not the final form so one has to look up the patch (can't find a good example right now) Both are a lot of work to document for someone who has not followed that issue. Tracking undocumented things would be got to not forget about it and to have an incentive to do it. Obviously not all things need documentation, and not all things need to be documented by the person who submitted the patch. But to make things easier for documentation people it'd be great if the issue could contain an up to date description of at least the syntax changes and configuration options etc. so that we can tidy it up and transfer it to the wiki. It's not nice to dig through patches for this. Another alternative would be to open issues like Document HIVE-5252 but I like the other option better. What do people think? Cheers, Lars -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
Re: Documentation Policy
There is no guarantee that the subtask will ever get completed after the feature goes in. There is no point of new features if users can't actually figure how to use it. I think we should either add sufficient documentation in the release notes section of jira or add doc in wiki as upcoming feature before we commit the changes. On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Eugene Koifman ekoif...@hortonworks.com wrote: I think opening a separate doc ticket and making it a subtask of the dev ticket works pretty well. The subtask can contain notes specific to documentation. Eugene On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Lars Francke lars.fran...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I wanted to ask how people feel about a policy where an issue is not closed until documentation has been added to the Wiki? Problematic issues fall roughly in two categories: * They have a generic title (add UDF for XY) an attached patch and a few code reviews without ever even mentioning what the name or usage of the new UDF is (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-5252) * They have a design document or description with the intended syntax but that's often not the final form so one has to look up the patch (can't find a good example right now) Both are a lot of work to document for someone who has not followed that issue. Tracking undocumented things would be got to not forget about it and to have an incentive to do it. Obviously not all things need documentation, and not all things need to be documented by the person who submitted the patch. But to make things easier for documentation people it'd be great if the issue could contain an up to date description of at least the syntax changes and configuration options etc. so that we can tidy it up and transfer it to the wiki. It's not nice to dig through patches for this. Another alternative would be to open issues like Document HIVE-5252 but I like the other option better. What do people think? Cheers, Lars -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
